The Open Thread is a general discussion forum, where you can talk about whatever you like — there is nothing ‘off topic’ here — within reason. So get up on your soap box! The standard commenting rules of courtesy apply, and at the very least your chat should relate to the general content of this blog.
The sort of things that belong on this thread include general enquiries, soapbox philosophy, meandering trains of argument that move dynamically from one point of contention to another, and so on — as long as the comments adhere to the broad BNC themes of sustainable energy, climate change mitigation and policy, energy security, climate impacts, etc.
You can also find this thread by clicking on the Open Thread category on the cascading menu under the “Home” tab.
Note 1: For reference, the last general open thread (from 16 April 2011) was here.
Note 2: I’m currently inordinately busy (but also having a lot of fun!) at the Equinox Summit: Energy 2030 in Waterloo, Canada. Once I get a chance to draw breath, I’ll post more about the summit on BNC. But we’re currently working intense 14 hour days (I’m not kidding), so I’ve not got much physical or mental energy left in me by the time I get back to my hotel room at night!
However, if you want to follow some of the events, the Canadian television station TVO is covering the whole summit. I was on a panel session yesterday (Benchmarking our Energy Future: see the video here), which also featured four really interesting short animated videos on energy; I will also be part of a 1-hour episode of Steve Paikin’s The Agenda on Friday night (Canadian time — but also available on the TVO website — more details to follow).
More on the WGSI Equinox Summit: Energy 2030 in the next blog post.
Brave New Climate 
593 replies on “Open Thread 16”
Jason Kobos, on 11 June 2011 at 1:49 AM said:
When I talk about electricity must become more expensive i’m talking about coal. Coal is the cheapest option right now.
For the very small club of countries that have significant amounts of inexpensively extractable coal then coal is the ‘cheapest option’.
LikeLike
Of course electricity becomes more expensive but that shouldn’t be because we want it to. Incremental and ‘natural’ inflationary pressures are to be expected.
The goal is to make energy cheap as possible, dense as possible, abundant as possible. This is why I’m pro-nuke. It can allow for for this sort of view point and be low carbon to boot.
I’m against making it more expensive, less available, and more diffuse. We need LOTS more than we have now. I’m against making it more expensive as function of climate change argumentation; to wit, I’m against making it a speculative commodity that it’s becoming where only those in the higher income brackets can use it.
LikeLike
@Environmentalist
Look, 36 hours of storage for solar is a joke in most of the places that matter right now (it might not be THAT large a joke on the equator). You need somewhere between hundreds and 2-odd thousand hours of storage in Germany. Going the low route means you need more panels because your effective CF is lower…
LikeLike
@ Environmentalist. First off the problem for solar and/or wind grids is seasonal storage, not daily storage. Second if you truly care about the environment you must care about the crazy amounts of metals and concrete that are used for the solar and pumped storage as their environmental footprint is considerable.
Solar is about 10 to 20x nuclear in metal and concrete use. The pumped hydro makes that worse because nuclear only needs 5-10 hours whereas solar needs more like 500 to get the same level of load carrying capacity.
The Japanese seawater pumped hydro system is not cheap at all, 30 billion Yen for 30 megawatt peak, this is around 10 dollars per Watt peak. For 5 hours full load this is 0.21 capacity factor, it thus costs 48 dollars per average Watt compared to 6 dollars per average Watt for Olkiluoto. This is 8x as expensive as Olkiluoto, just for the storage (ie solar panels cost nothing assumption!).
Click to access Annex_VIII_CaseStudy0101_Okinawa_SeawaterPS_Japan.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_Yanbaru_Seawater_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station
http://www.sustainability.ie/pumpedstoragemyth.html
The dismal reality does not add up.
LikeLike
Wind power has previously been discussed and shown to be almost entirely a sop for natgas.
LikeLike
A “sop”? You mean a figleaf?
Hey, figleaves are green. Classic greenwash.
LikeLike
Any analysis of pumped seawater storage should include these factors
– reduced curtailment of wind
– converting surplus cheap baseload to premium value peaking power
– possible use of unregulated power eg from nearby wind farms
– an alternative to gas backup when gas is prohibitively expensive.
LikeLike
Just to put the seawater pumped storage a little bit in perspective –
Sure,the ocean as a lower reservoir has superficial attractions but you would need to site the pump/turbine facility in a place where it accessable and not subject to damage from waves and storms.This place has to be compatible with construction of a sufficient size upper reservoir at a sufficient height above the generator.How many sites in Australia would be suitable under those criteria alone not even taking into account environmental impacts.
The use of highly corrosive seawater in a pump/ turbine/pipe system raises expense,maintenance and longevity problems.
The pumping of seawater onto land raises problems with salination of that land and of the related groundwater.
The proposal to build enormous pumped storage reservoirs on the Nullarbor ignores the fact that this area is flat and there will have to be enormous excavations made to provide the building materials for the walls.This entire region is limestone which is porous.That is a rather problematic building material to hold water.
Hundreds of kilometres of the coastline in this area is sheer cliff which,being limestone,is rapidly retreating.It is not called The Great Australian BIGHT for nothing.Just where are you going to site your power station?
If you solve all of the above problems you still have these facilities a long way from the market for the power generated.
Dream on.
LikeLike
bight/bīt/Noun
1. A curve or recess in a coastline, river, or other geographical feature.
[web diefintion]
LikeLike
A few things that amaze me about some people who claim to care about the environment –
They readily grasp at technological “solutions” without thinking the real issues through,especially the environmental impacts of their proposals.
Apparently technology is seen as the be all,end all of the solutions to problems which we face.It is manifestly obvious to any reasonably intelligent person who thinks from first principles that this is not the case.In fact,a lot of fancy techno solutions cause more problems than they solve.
A good example is the energy storage ideas proposed above.Another recent one is the Greens pushing for a very fast train link between Sydney,Canberra and Melbourne.A long standing example is the building of dams to supply irrigation water or hydro electricity when this whole process is known to cause grave damage to fragile riparian systems and salination of the irrigated land.
I am not against technology per se.However it must be applied with care to avoid collateral damage as far as possible.This is one of the reasons why I favour nuclear energy.In spite of all the ridiculous propaganda to the contrary,nuclear can be built at a reasonable cost,uses existing sites and infrastructure and has a very small to nonexistent footprint on what is left of our much abused ecosystems.
Fundamentaly,what is needed more than anything else,is an across the board rethinking of how the Homo Saps plague relates to Spaceship Earth.
I’m not holding my breath waiting.
LikeLike
@ Douglas,
/////All I’ll say is that nations compete and those that handicap themselves with taxes that are not applied by their competitors are, all other things being equal – which,of course, they aren’t- unlikely to thrive long term. The rise of China and the fall of the West (relatively) can be taken as an example./////
What a narrow, right-wing, ideologically driven paragraph full of cliché responses and catch-phrases. It also ignores enormous sweeps of geopolitical forces in the attempt to narrowly define unique historical junctures as mere ‘economics’ to fit your world-view. Look again at that link and look at all the countries higher on the tax / GDP ratio, and try and convince me that those countries are all ‘falling’. ;-)
LikeLike
David B Benson,I am well aware of the meaning of “bight” and that it does not necessarily mean an iron bound and eroding coastline as exists on the Great Australian Bight.
That part of my comment was just a little play on words to emphasise my point about the questionable suitability of that part of Australia for pumped seawater storage hydro.
You do have a sense of humour,don’t you?
LikeLike
@ DV8
///Frankly I have little patience with white-bread middle-class posers living ‘off-grid.’ My sister-in-law and her husband were one of those, and were insufferable about how superior their lifestyle was compared to ours. Pointing out that their solar array was the product of a modern factory, and that both it and the aluminium and other metals in their wind generator would not exist without the sort of energy that only comes from major sources, fell on deaf ears.///
Agreed — they can be really annoying. But I forget, is this in response to the “Open Source Hardware” movement? It’s about obtaining the top 50 tools of industry at a smaller scale, and they build tractors and bread ovens and harvesters and drill presses and stuff at about 1/8th the cost. My point was that African villagers can start to do that now, and that *some* weak intermittent electricity is better than *no* electricity. Africans are doing it tough. Having the wind blow half the time to run electric lighting at night so their kids can do their homework, well, that’s paradise.
LikeLike
@ Harrywr2,
////Wind and Solar not only have intraday variability, they have seasonal variability.////
But some overbuild for seasonal variation is factored into their reports? I’ve heard them — extra few hundred meters of mirrors for their solar thermal plants to cover winter, etc.
Also, what on earth happens on the grid when a CONVENTIONAL plant suddenly switches off! That’s a gig or 2 gone right there! Even conventional plants have overbuild to cover such contingencies.
LikeLike
@ David Walters,
If it’s so expensive, why does the PDF I quoted above say $2 billion (un-concreted) for 10 hours of storage for our whole country of 21 million people? Is this one of those exponential economy-of-scale things?
LikeLike
Podargus, on 11 June 2011 at 9:39 AM — Of course, and I smiled at your (over)emphasis. But I wasn’t sure what the word actually meant and so assumed others might also appreciate a quick definition.
This is a low bandwidth communication medium, one which requires a fairly thick skin. I’ve learned to let all sorts of minor irratants just slide by in order to concentrate on the main topics.
With regard to the Nullarbor plain it is clear that other locations ought to be considered first. Several seaside hilltops south of Sydney come to mid as potential seaside pumped hydro locations, for example. [Not that such will ever be more than boutique players…]
LikeLike
@ David Walters,
////I’m against making it more expensive, less available, and more diffuse////
Some utility experts say the spreading out of electricity supply makes it less likely to crash the grid. The 2003 blackouts across North America were quoted in the video’s above. In that case, ‘diffuse’ is an advantage, not a disadvantage, according to those utility experts anyway.
LikeLike
@ Podagarus,
////Sure,the ocean as a lower reservoir has superficial attractions but you would need to site the pump/turbine facility in a place where it accessable and not subject to damage from waves and storms.This place has to be compatible with construction of a sufficient size upper reservoir at a sufficient height above the generator.How many sites in Australia would be suitable under those criteria alone not even taking into account environmental impacts.////
All sorted mate — check out the Bite!
////The use of highly corrosive seawater in a pump/ turbine/pipe system raises expense,maintenance and longevity problems.////
Again all sorted by using the right materials.
////The pumping of seawater onto land raises problems with salination of that land and of the related groundwater.////
They make it water tight. They don’t want to lose their precious energy storage medium!
////Hundreds of kilometres of the coastline in this area is sheer cliff which,being limestone,is rapidly retreating.It is not called The Great Australian BIGHT for nothing.Just where are you going to site your power station?////
This is just silly. The dam itself can be hundreds of meters inland as the pipes go down through the rock.
////If you solve all of the above problems you still have these facilities a long way from the market for the power generated./////
Absolutely. Not very much about renewable energy is efficient, is it? But it is seeming more and more possible. They allow for seasonal overbuild, backup from hydro, and continent wide super-grids. In the future there may even be backup from electric vehicles that sell back during periods of peak demand. Weird, inefficient, yet somehow the public seem to love this stuff.
LikeLike
@ Podagarus,
///A good example is the energy storage ideas proposed above.///
If these 7km diameter hydro dams stop us mining hundreds of km’s of coal…. let alone the Co2 impacts? They’ll be located in the DESERT Podagarus. I’m not talking about HUNDREDS OF KM’s being wiped out. We can spare a few of these $2 billion (or say $3 billion with concrete lining) dams out in the desert. We’ve got enough of that.
LikeLike
@ David Benson,
//// Several seaside hilltops south of Sydney come to mid as potential seaside pumped hydro locations, for example. [Not that such will ever be more than boutique players…]/////
National parks and real estate costs on the coast? The (non-park) Nullarbor area is ideal for low real estate value, elevation, and being on the hypothetical super-grid from Melbourne to Adelaide and Perth.
LikeLike
The just-released Productivity Commission report Carbon Emission Policies in Key Economies provides plenty of ammunition to shoot down the truly awful waste of public wealth associated with the renewables subsidies and mandates. The avoidance costs quoted for wind and solar are of course understated, as there is no accounting for the true cost of intermittency compensation. Unsurprisingly, nuclear does not get a mention (except in references).
Is there any leadership capable of using the facts on offer to deal with the zombie subsidies?
LikeLike
Peter Lang
Here is a link to an article by the author of the remark you got so het up about i.e. tattooing deniers – do read it and see what vitriol he was exposed to by others with no sense of irony – particularly bad from American deniers – who is surprised by that?
However, the article has been highlighted and spread on the net by folk such as yourself and this has induced a wave of threats and hate mail. Why is the right-wing more likely to re-act like this? Their denialism is based on fear – they can see what is happening but are so afraid of the future they prefer to deny it. As if that will make one iota of difference!
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-climate-change-wave-of-hate-20110609-1ftix.html?from=smh_sb
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
////no accounting for the true cost of intermittency compensation.////
Isn’t that what we are discussing with the Nullarbor hydro-storage facility at $2billion to run the whole nation for 10 hours?
LikeLike
Eclipse Now, on 11 June 2011 at 10:09 AM — Well south of Syndey: Moruya Heads? Toross Head?
My one trip down that way certainly gave the impression of plenty of room for some pumped hydro.
Altho’ Depot Beach & Pebbly Beach was as far south as I went…
LikeLike
@ Gregory Meyerson.
////EN: the jay apt wind presentation that is part of the canada conference is a devastating rebuttal to the claim above about supposed wind farm stability (relative to coal in above example).
He shows a graph from U.S. northwest of all wind farms falling flat for ten days.////
See, right there is an example of what worries me. When I hear things like that it almost sounds to me like Helen Caldicott saying “But we don’t know what to do with nuclear waste!” Come on Gregory, let’s have everyone doing their best to be honest and with complete integrity address what the other side is saying, otherwise aren’t we just like (deleted pejorative) anti-nuke Helen?
As far as I am aware, the NorthWest is NOT really on the ‘wind-map’ of America! The MAJOR wind corridor is right down the middle! Show me the T-Boone Pickens wind map of America and show me an area of THAT that was quiet for 10 days.
LikeLike
@Eclipse Now – I hate to break it to you, but anyone living in the Third World on your idea of appropriate technology, is doing so because there is no other choice. It is certainly not paradise, and they will give it up in an instant for better. Personally I find your type of attitude insufferably arrogant; in essence saying that it’s so cute that they are trying to be like us, with whatever crumbs we deem ‘appropriate’ for them to have. Meanwhile, we don’t care if we have left a light on in some empty room of or house.
The price of not helping these people into a semblance of our prosperity is to have them damage our collective environment to the point where we will lose what we have now. If any logic were at work here the West should be giving the Chinese and Indians as many nuclear reactors as we could produce to stop them burning coal, because the impact of CO2 on the planet will know no borders.
So what? Going to the Moon is possible – but there is no point to it given the returns. You would support technology that will do damage to the local ecology on a huge scale to avoid the use of nuclear energy which has a much smaller footprint, and produces a lot more energy. This is part of the ‘anything but nuclear’ cry of the renewable zealots as they see their precious world-view fall apart as more and more of these idiot projects fail to meet expectations. It looks to me like a case of wanting to move on to the next stupid idea and start promoting it as the solution, rather than admit that the whole damned concept of trying to concentrate usable amounts of energy from nebulous sources like wind and sunshine is deeply flawed.
And by the way, as a courtesy to the rest of us, please use the blockquote function
LikeLike
Here’s one for the BNC community – some may already know about it. http://www.chrismartenson.com
All the videos, including live recordings, are at Chris Martenson’s YouTube channel. The aptly named Crash Course videos are all organized on the Crash Course playlist and on ChrisMartenson.com. I started at the beginning, but my selection for a starting point and viewing order is
Chapter 17b Energy Economics
Chapter 17a Peak Oil or “When Demand Exceeds Supply”
Chapter 17c Energy & the Economy
In Part 18, The Environment, Martenson talks about resource extraction. One of his examples is uranium; he states that the USA and France have already passed peak production of their own uranium from high grade ores. He includes a clipping in the presentation showing uranium being depleted “in 30 to 40 years at current rates”. He seems to be accepting early studies that underestimated uranium supply and were based on U235 burning only. In his summary he therefore lists “peak uranium” along with peak oil and peak coal as a matter of concern. I think he’s ready for some BNC education – I’m going to look further at his site and see how it might be done.
His summary is this: “The choice seems clear: either we undertake voluntary change now or face involuntary change later.” He draws this conclusion without even needing to consider AGW, carbon emissions, and ocean acidification. His economic discussion is based on the USA but IMO is far more general; I expect that all of our Western or Westernized, credit driven economies have exactly the characteristics and issues.
Martenson also says: “I’m an optimist and I want a better future of our own design.”
One of Martenson’s most effective arguments, for me, comes from his discussion of EROEI and its importance in Chapter 17b Energy Economics. It articulates my position exactly, and I wish that I had written and illustrated it. In one segment (I didn’t take note of what video it’s in, and where – sorry) he illustrates MacKay’s concept of energy as servant/slave:
The illustration is very effective and he uses the visual metaphor in several places in the presentations.
One minor quibble that he acknowledges: he’s showing “hockey stick” and “exponential” graphs more or less interchangeably. The mathematically fastidious might nit-pick this – but it doesn’t invalidate his arguments.
ChrisMartenson.com looks like a very deep site. I haven’t explored too much; I wanted to get it in front of the BNC community for more evaluations. I hope it might tone down some of the squabbles I see in comment threads – we need action, not bickering. It does have a catch – full access, including access to his thoughts on what an individual can do (Part 20 of the video), requires a paid membership.
Martenson advocates facing the future unflinchingly and setting budgets and priorities for taking constructive action. In his opinion political and business leaders have dropped the ball; I think most people here agree. I think we can all agree that we need all of the nuclear technologies – the problem is that big.
Kirk Sorensen, in one of the videos on his post Excellent Adventures in Calgary (with Gordon) notes that we are now a generation after the pioneers of breeder and thorium reactors. We’re the generation that looks back at them and says, “You knew all this. Why didn’t you do it?” He doesn’t want his children (and Rod Adams doesn’t want his grandchildren) to look back at us, thirty years from now, and say (paraphrasing Kirk) “You knew all this. Why didn’t you do it?” (It’s in the first video, shot at Mount Royal University, starting at 1 hour 30 minutes 30 seconds into the video.)
LikeLike
EN: apt’s point was that phenomena like the 10 day fall off in wind is not all that unusual. it’s nothing like caldicott.
do you think all the work done on this site on wind’s unreliability amounts to caldicott?
as for this:
////I’m against making it more expensive, less available, and more diffuse////
Some utility experts say the spreading out of electricity supply makes it less likely to crash the grid. The 2003 blackouts across North America were quoted in the video’s above. In that case, ‘diffuse’ is an advantage, not a disadvantage, according to those utility experts anyway.
Diffuse is not the same as robust or well buffered.
LikeLike
@Cyril
We keep debating in circles, yes I made it perfectly obvious that seasonal variation stability is key, it would not work In Germany, but it would work in a LOT of places, a LOT more places than those in the Equator, it could work in Japan for example
Irradiation unit is defined as kWh/ meter^2/ day
Tosashimizu,Japan has a very good standard deviation of 0.44 with the worst month is 3.84 irradiation units 84% of the average. 5.58 summer peak
Frankfurt, Germany gets 0.86 irradiation units in winter (27.4% of average) and 5.04 in summer standard deviation of 1.55 that is the type of variation they deal with and they STILL go through with subsidies, respect. They need both wind AND solar AND storage.
Darwin,Australia has 5.12 (84% of average) in the winter and 6.79 in the summer.
Standard deviation is 0.58
All from here
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/
So you can see most of the world can make it work, sadly not Germany nor Scandinavia but they are the exception, wind has to pitch in.
Seawater storage has a lower enviromental impact than nuclear IGNORING ACCIDENTS OR WASTE, it uses freshwater as a heat sink creating local heat and thirst for fresh water resources.
Capacity factor for hydro is irrelevant, its generally 0.3-0.4 and it is still the cheapest source of power, the reason being is that turbines are pretty cheap relatively speaking, the cost is in the massive cement containment.
(Comment deleted – please re-submit with substantiating refs.)
LikeLike
Bravo Barry!!! You spoke well on the Friday discussion. The panel was reasonably supportive of nuclear. It was disappointing to see how some have settled on the idea that nuclear energy is too expensive. They actually believe that nuclear energy will take too long compared to renewable forms of energy. There is a serious lack of awareness in my opinion and it makes a lot of sense that it’s momentum and maintaining a low cost energy source that needs to be emphasized to these renewable supporters. I am sorry that you don’t see Thorium MSRs as more exciting than you do but you have all the other matters in perspective and that is great.
LikeLike
DV82XL,
Endorsing your argument to EclipseNow, I was watching an excellent documentary on the National Geographic channel about medical services in a certain African country. Just in passing they mentioned what had been done at some of the outlying clinics using roof top PV installations.
Finally they were able to provide enough power to maintain a small refrigerator at the proper temperature to preserve drug stocks. In addition they were able to keep one light bulb burning through the night. During times of heavy cloud it was necessary to do without the light bulb.
Quite accidentally, Nat Geo brought home to me the futility of renewable power sources. When will we stop putting obstacles in the way of affordable electric power for the third world? This is a serious moral issue relating to what John Cristy is talking about here:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2009/07/morality-of-climate-change_26.html
Please forgive me for mentioning a prominent sceptic (denier?) on this blog.
LikeLike
(Environmentalist’s comment has been deleted awaiting refs.)
LikeLike
(Environmentalist’s comment has been deleted – awaiting refs.)
It’s clear “Environmentalist” either has no idea what a “capital cost” is – fuel is never included as a capital cost, because it isn’t one – or he/she is simply lying. Additionally, fuel costs for new nuclear plants (including spent fuel management) account for only around 20% of the LCOE (p. 16, http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf).
LikeLike
Alright here we go.
Visualize the typical demand curve if you will, a load following NPP would have to be able to have the safety requirements to allow for peak production to meet peak demand otherwise without FF or pumped hydro you have a brownout, this is certainly problematic in the first place as you would require redundancy in case of unpredictably high demand, otherwise brownout.
However peak demand occurrs only a few hours a day, meaning that this nuclear plant that is rated for peak output has to either cut back its power output costing it lost earnings, again the plant would be operating at lower capacity for most of the day thereby reducing its capacity factor.
The exact figures I cannot give you unless you give me data on daily demand you wish for me to check. In short the Integral of the demand curve/(peak production*24 hours)
This fall in capacity factor is more expensive than the 1.25$/watt of quoted pumped hydro. if it is .7 then Olkiluotto becomes 7.15 vs 5.55 normalized ergo its cheaper with pumped hydro.
As for the cost of fuel the same NPP will use using these prices for uranium fuel
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
1600MW * 24 hours *365 * 60 years = 841 TWh
841TWh/360,000 kWh/Kg = 2.3 MKg
2.3 MKg * 2767 $/Kg = 6.46 Billion dollars / .92 = 5.951 Billion $ in fuel costs
The plant cost 8 billion $.
Its 42.6% of the TOTAL costs of the plant
and 74.35% of the capital costs of the plant
So I was technically wrong but the real numbers makes nuclear far more expensive than I thought, in the battle between capital costs and operational costs nuclear is down the middle, FF and coal on the side of operating costs and renewables are almost all capital costs.
LikeLike
Thank you also DV82XL for your comment on 10 June 2011 at 5:50 PM.
By far the most thought-provoking, intelligent comment I have read on this thread. The answer to your final, assumedly rhetorical question, is of course politics.
There’s no doubt fossil fuels have provided a huge benefit to a lot of people, and been the back bone of industrialised society, and all the benefits that have come with it, since the industrial revolution. It’s clear now though that use of fossil fuels are well and truly on the downward slope in the utility they provide – similar to what microeconomists call the law of diminishing marginal utility. The difference here is that there’s no optimal level to be using them at – they need to be cut, and nuclear fission is the only viable, environmentally sound way of replacing them.
LikeLike
@ Environmentalist,
Try actually reading the article you referenced for fuel costs. It also includes a nice table with actual OECD generating (levelised) costs.
0.77 c/kWh total fuel costs – uranium, conversion, enrichment and fabrication. Using the lowest OECD LCOE of 2.9 c/kWh in Korea fuel accounts for (0.77/2.9)*100 = 26.5 % of LCOE. Using the highest LCOE in Hungary, 8.2 c/kWh, we get (0.77/8.2)*100 = 9.4 % of LCOE.
So in OECD nations (under the assumption uranium prices do not differ significantly across these nations), fuel accounts for 9.4 % – 26.5 % of LCOE.
Fuel costs are not an issue for nuclear.
You still have not provided a reference for your claim about nuclear needing hydro backup.
LikeLike
I’m a bit surprised at the lack of discussion of the Australian Productivity Commission report. This important eight-country study directly addresses many of the central energy policy issues that have been discussed on BNC. In particular the study reveals the high cost of bad energy policies – how similar GHG abatement could be obtained for a fraction of the current spend. I’ve written a short summary post, leading with this teaser from the report:
LikeLike
@ DV8,
you’ve really got me all wrong. I’ve had a sponsor child in Africa for decades, and really care about various aid projects over there. You’re really ignorant about my dreams for Africa. It’s all there on my website! Point 5.
I’m ALL FOR them having a “United States of Africa” with political stability and a functioning Federal democracy in which a stable nuclear program could be established. How long away is their “USA?” How’s African stability right now? Sure I want them stable and prosperous and committed to the rule of law, anti-corruption, a unified marketplace and strong African dollar. Sure I’m all for them having a successful nuclear program and energy independence. But it requires security and stability across the continent. It might still even require some aid programs, if only we can prevent the money being sucked into lining the pockets of dictators!
How long is a prosperous successful African Federation going to take?
Yeah, well, great, you just dictate to them that they can ONLY make it with nukes. Tell me, how many African village workshops can whip up a nuke? Hmmmm? How long will they have to wait to do it YOUR WAY!??
You’ve got me so wrong. It’s not that I’m against nuclear energy but that I am realistic about their levels of poverty and that they just can’t afford it yet! I’m not talking about African villages buying a Vestas wind turbine to stick up, but an even smaller, more immediate scale of D.I.Y. power so they at least have some power.
Watch this youtube clip — it’s only 6 minutes, and shows what a big difference a *little* weak, unreliable renewable electricity can make over having NO electricity!
Open Source hardware frees them from a sick dependence on hardware multinationals. They can source parts from scrap metal and junk yards and local workshops and build their own tools for themselves. So where the heck am I being patronising about ‘crumbs from my table’. I’m encouraging them to do it themselves!
I hope I’ve got you wrong, but YOUR attitude seems to be the one that tells an African village NOT to develop what they can, but they must wait until they can afford to buy YOUR approved products from YOUR approved multinational corporations. Who is the one being patronising, even Imperial?
Maybe their self determination at the local level scares you? I’m just cheering on ANY progress for these poor bastards who have been so raped and abused by the West for so long.
LikeLike
Gregory,
you have completely missed the point. I hope it was not intentional? The POINT mate is that apt’s 10 day fall off is not in the right spot! I could make all sorts of points about nuclear safety from discussing Fukishima, but that’s ignoring Gen3.5 and Gen4 passive safety schemes isn’t it? If some idiot is going to jump up and down about a 10 day wind drop in an area OUTSIDE the main wind corridor of America, then I’m just going to ignore him, period.
So I’d appreciate it if you could tell me exactly which part of the NW of America died for 10 days. Because on this map, we have a few areas right on the West Coast that are graded “Outstanding” through to “Superb” wind, but just a little to their right a whole VAST region that is graded white — a no go area for wind. The vast bulk of the NW corridor across America is not even listed for wind. So some guy comes along and points “Look, no wind!” Even the wind boosters would smack their hands to their foreheads and yell back, “Ya think?”
But right down the guts of America there’s fair to good wind across hundreds and hundreds of km’s. As the wind boosters say, build the wind grid big and wide enough and the wind approaches baseload for about 30% of your power requirements. (From one of Peter Sinclair’s video’s above, and I don’t have the time to go back and check his source. Sorry).
LikeLike
@ Galloping Camel,
Oh really, I’m the one preventing African development? See my reply to DV8 a few posts back mate, because it’s equally relevant to you. EVERY word!
As for Cristy’s “Greenie conspiracy that hurts the poor”, this is a piece I wrote about that 3 years ago in response to that great bastion of lies and misinformation and stupidity, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.
Indeed, I wish you Denialists could make up your minds and sort out which conspiracy theory you believed in! While “Swindle” would have you believe global warming is a conspiracy to ROB the poor and prevent them getting power and development, Monckton shouts paranoia about a Communist world government taking all our hard earned cash and spreading it around the poor countries to support their modern energy programs! So which is it — a conspiracy to rob them, or give them too much of our money? When are you Denialist’s going to make up your minds?
Do check my link, because Monckton was partially right.
There ARE organisations talking about an ETS / Carbon pricing scheme that might reward the poorer nations and help them develop. But it’s no great “Communist Conspiracy” as far as I can tell, just good old fashioned Centrist “Social Liberalism”.
You’ve been had mate. I thought you were smarter than that!
LikeLike
Steve Darden I agree that the key message of the Productivity Commission report seems to have gone over people’s heads, namely that most trendy energy policies have been a waste of money and effort. Yet I think we’ll get more of them as the fateful day draws near when/if carbon tax becomes a reality. When the wind and solar crowd insist they not only need existing support to continue but to increase we must remind them — both the PC and Garnaut say it begins and ends with a carbon price. No RET, no RECs, no feed-in tariffs.
I suspect the first half of 2012 will see frantic lobbying to cut special deals. Even Combet has hinted at transitional arrangements. The Treasury Dept may wish to redo their optimistic modelling. Alas I fear that not only will the carbon tax be watered down with exemptions and offsets but renewables support will be increased, not cut. The only saving grace is that I don’t see any new conventional coal plants being started.
LikeLike
@Environmentalist
That calculator is fun. Unfortunately, Darwin is not particularly important from an emissions POV. Places like Europe, US, China and India, are important. According to that site, Germany sees about a factor of 5 in seasonal variation: over 25% of a year storage needs, or over 2000 hours. Bombay (only 19 in latitude!) sees almost exactly a 1 month average generation deficit over months 6-9, which means 720 hours of storage (with no safety margin). Shanghai actually does about 10% better. These numbers do not include power leakage due to the need to store energy, not for hours, but rather for months. Losing .1%/day (I have absolutely no idea what the number should be) amounts to 10% over a half-year. .5% day->40%/half year.
Of course, you can remove the seasonal variation storage needs by building your renewables assuming the lowest seasonal CF. This increases the generator costs (but those are much cheaper than storage) and still doesn’t solve the “small” time-scale fluctuation problems.
LikeLike
@ Eclipse Now – Oh I understand you all right; better now too with your sponsor child and ‘United States of Africa’ fantasies that tells me that, true to form, you have absolutely no idea of what is going on there, or what it will take to change it. (deleted inflammatory comment)
Apparently you also only read into my remarks what you want – I am not suggesting that Third-World villages make nuclear reactors, but that WE should supply nuclear power to a region so that it can electrify and raise the standard of living so that first they will stop misusing local resources, (deforestation for fuel, as an example) second when the do start to develop, in the urban centers, they will not turn to fossil fuels.
The crux of my argument is that if we do not help them raise their standard of living, then the impact from their activities, as they do it themselves, will adversely affect us.
MODERATOR
DV8 and EN – please cool it. This is an OT but standards of civility still apply.
LikeLike
@ DV8
I of course agree with your concerns. Indeed, I’d take them further. Only when they are living comfortable modern lives with all their needs met will they have a Demographic Transition which will lower their population explosion. That could have the greatest impact of all.
So, how many nuclear power plants have we donated to the 3rd world so far? (deleted inflammatory remark)
In the meantime I’ve passed on the Open Source Hardware links to various aid and charity groups, who will build little home scaled wind turbines and solar cells with — or without — your permission.
MODERATOR
DV8 and EN – please cool it. This is an OT but standards of civility still apply.
LikeLike
More to DV8:
Indeed, only last week I received a quite encouraging email back from the CEO of a large AID group who appeared *very* interested in the Open Source Hardware movement. They have various projects around the globe, and are looking into it as we speak. Check it out. You might even find something there for your ‘off the grid’ friends! ;-)
Here is my copy and paste rave about Open Source Hardware. Enjoy.
*****
* Do you know people who need FREE PLANS for D.I.Y. (Do it Yourself) CHEAP industrial equipment to run a farm, bakery, or local workshop?
* Do they need FREE plans for tractors, bread ovens, a Drill Press, Torch table, Earth Brick maker, Tractor, Harvester, String Trimmer, Soil Pulveriser, and dozens of other farm and industrial tools that could revolutionise village life?
* In short there is a new movement called “Open Source Hardware” that is just like the “Open Source Software” movement that believes information should be FREE. The information is free, but you must supply the parts and materials yourself.
* Parts are bought from the local village workshops or recycled metal scrapyards — so the money stays in the local African village or town in Kosovo or farm in the American deep south. The money isn’t sucked overseas into some giant multinational, but stays and employs local people where it does more good.
* They give away FREE plans for the top 50 industrial tools that make modern civilisation possible!
* Designed for built in longevity — NO built in obsolescence!
* Finished products are to be as functional, durable and safe as industry standards.
* Even with sourcing local parts and labour it is 8 times cheaper than buying new ones!
* For example, to buy a new tractor in America can be anywhere from $25 thousand to $120 thousand. The OpenFarmTech.org tractor was only $12,000 — and that money largely went to local suppliers.
* It’s all free. Just like Open Source Software they might hope that *some* fame and fans will donate towards it, but for YOUR town and YOUR project, it is FREE!
* Once you have built it you know how to repair it! They are built for life — no built in obsolescence — and the parts are interchangeable.
* So you are freed from the tricks of multinational farm equipment, and are not locked in to expensive servicing contracts and agreements.
* When you can build all the bits you need locally, there’s no ordering expensive stuff in from overseas.
* There’s also no waiting for overseas parts — fix it today instead!
* Parts are fairly interchangable. That might make for some unusual looking stuff, but at least it works!
* It’s like a giant Lego set, so once someone has built the Drill Press they can probably gain the confidence to move onto the egg incubator, earth-brick maker or the truly awesome, military looking Tractor!
* Includes plans for some cheap local renewable energy systems, so it is better for an African village to have some wind power rather than no electricity at all!
* By the end of 2012 they are hoping to have all 50 items on their website (and a DVD you can download and burn and take on a cheap laptop to some African village that might not have the internet yet).
* Please pass this on to any Aid Workers or Missionaries you know in poorer parts of the world that might need a little help getting started, or even recovering from a natural disaster!
4 minute TED talk
Video site and blog
http://opensourceecology.org/
Wiki that links to plans and other resources
http://openfarmtech.org/wiki/Main_Page
LikeLike
@ Eclipse Now – If you’re going to choose to act like an idiot, and pretend that you do not understand the points I am trying to make, then further communication with you is a waste of my time.
Moderator – is this sort of schoolyard taunting in lue of a counterargument the sort of debate that is wanted here?
MODERATOR
See my comment upthread to both of you.
LikeLike
@ DV8,
you started this mate. I’m very concerned for Africa and you insisted that I’m just an idealist with no clue about the situation on the ground. Then you propose we’ll just give them all the nukes they need to develop! Wow. Seriously, I’d be interested if you had some mechanism for this to happen! In the meantime there IS a mechanism worked out for the gradual integration of African political and economic systems, there’s a pathway worked out over the next 15 or so years (if you bothered to read up on it).
So who’s the idealist? Free nukes or African integration and solidarity?
What are you talking about?
LikeLike
It would seem that I have not stated my position clearly. First is that we should make nuclear power technology available to these places, not necessarily giving it away, but certainly clearing the way.
Second, I am well aware of the endless, and wasteful ‘appropriate technology’ efforts that are out there. They are not doing the job fast enough, and they are burdened by a lot of ideology that is predicated on the belief that some white bread. middle-class, university student that has never known a day of hunger in his life can dictate what he thinks these people need, at least as long as his gap-year funding holds out.
These are not long-term solutions to the energy issues of the Third World. Nor is the interference of those that think that they can arrogate themselves the right to chose how these people develop of any long term value. While groups are pushing what they hope will be the model for a low energy West on these people, they are at the same time lobbying many Third World governments not to accept GM seed. Apparently in their deep wisdom, they think starving is better than letting poor people use what they have deemed inappropriate technology.
Thirdly I can make a case that not helping the poor raise their standard of living will have a serious impact on ours down the road. We done it before. Much of the drive to inoculate great numbers of the Third World population was not driven by altruism or kindness, but by a very practical motivation which was to reduce the wild pool of these contagions lest they evolve and become a danger to us.
Lastly I do not care what sort of feelings you have for Africa, it does not validate your position. If it leads to supporting wrongheaded ideas, the Africans are better without it.
LikeLike
@Eclipse Now
If this DIY open hardware stuff can make an immediate real difference in some parts of the world then it deserves support. There is no denying the benefit of some electricity from cobbled together wind turbines, spray on PV material or whatever.
But that should not lead to a conclusion that a modern electricity infrastructure is not badly needed. I don’t think you are saying that, but others surely will. Even worse, they will then draw entirely inappropriate conclusions about future energy demand and all the implications that has for the climate/energy problem. This is very dangerous territory.
I’m pretty skeptical about “open hardware” stuff. There have been sporadic attempts over the years to do this sort of stuff in computing. eg I seem to remember an open Sparc project. But as a whole it has amounted to not a lot. It’s easy to see why – you can do top class software engineering on a PC that costs a few hundred dollars, but to develop virtually any hardware of any sort you need relatively expensive R&D resources.
LikeLike
The problem with open source hardware (not in the electronic meaning of the term) is that the tolerances have to be kept rather low, and this limits the size and power of the final product.
LikeLike
@John Newlands
The “good news” is the Productivity Commission report gives the pols who may argue your point a well-reasoned foundation – even slides for their deck. But who will make the case? Who is Australia’s David MacKay?
I won’t take the contra bet; the little I’ve learned of political economy says that democracies progress in smaill, fitful increments. I’m prone to think in terms of bold policy initiatives, like the trade of a revenue-neutral carbon tax for elimination of all subsidies/mandates. But that is unlikely. The polity of France is a special case: an elite technocracy administering a highly centralized government. That platform executed the bold nuclear build.
Speaking of MacKay, I’ve been hoping that BNC would take an interest in MacKay’s DECC 2050 Calculator Tool. That is a good effort towards educating both voters and politicians. Yes, it is simple, like Without The Hot Air the simulator ignores economics, just focuses on making sure the pathways all add up. But that is probably a good teaching strategy. See also Public debate about 2050 Pathways.
LikeLike
Eclipse Now said:
////We can also dismiss out of hand the suite of imaginary issues that have been fabricated as objections to nuclear energy,////
Australian HATRED of nuclear energy is NOT imaginary. I’ve almost come to blows at parties over it!
So true. In the (audio) book “7 habits of highly effective people” by Steven R. Covey I listen to now and again, has a very good section on “conflict resolution.” The jist of his explanation is that there is a balance with emotions on one side and intelligence on the other. When 1 is high the other is low.
So, when people are highly emotional about a topic, they are low in intelligence on that topic. Not that they are dumb, they just resort to name calling and stuff rather than speaking the information and statistics.
It is not just a matter of getting the public information on what nuclear really is. You also have to calm them down so that they can actually hear what you are saying. Not an easy thing to do.
LikeLike
The path to nuclear in the developing world is already being aided by Russia (India, China, Turkey, Vietnam, ..) and France (China, India), and Japan in the form of Westinghouse (China). Later the third world will be helped by primarily India and China.
So, this is going to happen whatever arguments are going on in Australia, the US, or Europe. To be honest in a short time it won’t matter what the ‘white breads’ of the world think. The world is moving East, nuclear is just one sign.
LikeLike
@Eclipse. “Spreading out the load”??? You mean spreading out the generation, right?
“Diffuse” refers to both the area and low KW per meter squared vs density. But it depends on what “plan” one talks about. If people talk about massive solar fields in North Africa and in Arizona, it’s a highly concentrated geographic plan where one “wheels” power 3000 miles. How is this at ALL “diffuse”? It’s diffuse only from the point of view of watts per amount of material and spread out over vast areas but the grid hook up is usually just that, ONE hook up to a LONG transmission line.
The answer to the problem of the NE black out was the SCADA system that failed. But lets say I agree: more nukes spread out over a larger area would work for me.
LikeLike
@Eclipse…the 2 billion bucks to supply 10 hours of power seems rather low. Also, Helms and other pump storage facilities last *days* and *weeks*. 10 hours won’t work. I wouldn’t want my *entire nation* relying on a few pump storage facilities that can only last 10 hours.
You build around 12 nukes to start but taking 70% of your defense budget and that would be that. You could close an equivalent amount of coal plants. Carbon footprint goes down.
LikeLike
EclipseNow,
Yes, you and greenies out there have a callous disregard for the millions of people in the third world who are harmed by the lack of DDT, affordable electricity etc.
Based on your comments here I regarded you as harmless and clueless. However, since you gave me those links to your website I find that you are quite dangerous. Your political ideas would do justice to Maurice Strong and George Soros. I just hope you don’t have access to the kind of resources that they have.
Bad energy policies can harm many millions of people but the implementation of the kind of authoritarian government you advocate is 100 times worse. Just look at the death toll in the 20th century alone. It starts with simple coercion “for the good of the people”, it proceeds through the burning of books to imprisoning dissidents and then “eliminating” them. You really need to read Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”.
LikeLike
Congratulations Camel, you are sailing rather close to providing yet more empirical evidence for Godwin’s Law
LikeLike
DV82XL,
Your posts on this thread have been beyond excellent, even by your standards. It leaves little for me to say other than “Amen”.
LikeLike
Eclipse Now, on 11 June 2011 at 5:21 PM said:
If some idiot is going to jump up and down about a 10 day wind drop in an area OUTSIDE the main wind corridor of America, then I’m just going to ignore him, period.
The wind turbines in the Pacific Northwest are exceptionally well sited. My wife and I have driven past most of them on our motorcycle and keeping the bike on the correct side of the road due to the relatively high winds is a lot of work in the area of the wind turbines.
In addition due to the amount of hydro on the Columbia river there is good proximity to transmission lines. Transmission towers are not inexpensive. The Pacific Northwest also has more then it’s fair share of hydro in order to load balance the wind.
Roosevelt Lake, the body of water sitting behind Grand Coulee Dam is the 6th Largest reservoir in the US with 11.9 cubic kilometers of storage capacity. Grand Coulee has the highest ‘nameplate’ capacity of any hydro dam in the US.
The point being that the wind turbines themselves are not the only cost and the Pacific Northwest already had substantial infrastructure in place to support wind turbines.
When the wind turbines first started being built Bonneville Power estimated they could accommodate 6 GW of wind turbines on the grid without incurring substantial additional cost . They were wrong.
I personally would like the local coal fired electricity plant to close as it creates a haze that ruins my view of Mt Rainier and every couple of years I have to spend a weekend cleaning soot off of my house. The Governor just granted it a 10 year license extension with some weasly language about eventually converting it to natural gas.
We have 3.5 GW of wind on our grid growing to 6 GW by 2013 and the 6th largest reservoir in the US and we can’t manage to close one stinking coal fired plant.
I’m all for wind if it can manage to replace our stinking coal fired plant…I’ve given up hope that it will ever happen.
LikeLike
quokka,
When it comes to body count the Marxist inspired authoritarian rulers make Hitler look like an under achiever.
LikeLike
Let’s not pursue this, gc.
You will cite sources viewed as absurd by others and vice versa.
You’ll have me read Hayek and I’ll have you read Istvan Meszaros on Hayek.
Off list is a better place for this discussion.
EN would not be persuaded by Hayek, I can assure you.
LikeLike
Gregory Meyerson,
Having read some of your political commentaries I feel ill equipped to argue with you. I will say no more on Mega deaths.
I agree that this is not the place to discuss politics other than what applies specifically to energy issues.
I will be teaching in Raleigh next week. I am planning to meet with a certain senator who is influential on energy issues. Any possibility of meeting you in person?
LikeLike
Eclipse Now,I must confess that I did breathe a sigh of relief when you got huffy and cancelled your subscription.
But I see that you are back,with a vengeance.As the conversation is becoming even more remote from reality I,for one,will withdraw and give you some more space.
It seems that you are approaching the red giant stage of a dying star.
LikeLike
@ DV8
You are spanking me for positions I do not hold. I actually agree with much of what you’re saying, but don’t really feel like ticking the paragraphs where I do — given your attitude. I’m done discussing Africa with you — as you will not give 1 millimetre of ground over attacking a straw-man position that I never actually voiced or hold. It’s all in your head. I’m done.
LikeLike
@ Quokka,
Agreed — thank you for actually bothering to hear what I was saying, and not forcing some preconceived biases about ‘off the grid hippies’ distort the message.
Cheers.
People were skeptical about Open Source software, yet the market penetration of Linux servers for web apps is skyrocketing and look what software we are using to have this conversation! Did you watch the Open Source Hardware video? The guy running this is no dummy! (He has a Phd in Fusion energy. Anyone here got one of those? Put up your hands now…)
LikeLike
Eclipse Now, on 11 June 2011 at 10:52 AM — As harrywr2 pointed out above, the Pacific Northwest has considerable 32% wind potential. That means the maximum capacity factor for wind generation is 0.32, which is quite good. [Montana only reaches 38% wind.]
LikeLike
@ DV8,
Agreed — so the harvester is family farm scaled not the enormous wide super-structures where the driver lives in what looks like an airline cockpit! But the point is to give industrial productivity to the family farm scale, which is the scale of much of the world’s ventures, be they farmers, bakers, or the local workshop..
LikeLike
@ SteveK9,
So true!
LikeLike
@ David Walters,
Oops, tired and rushed. Thanks for catching that one.
And it would work for me as well! I’m not doing the nuclear V renewables thing here, I’m sold on nukes! I’m doing the “Are renewables *possible* if Australians are willing to pay an extra 40% (or whatever) for their power?” That’s honestly all I’m asking. If you see this blog-page of mine change to being pro-renewables, THEN assume I’ve lost the plot and dropped nukes as the “Silver Bullet” OK?
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/refuel/
LikeLike
@ David Walters,
The paper it’s based on doesn’t include concreting the floor of the 7km diameter hydro dam. At a guesstimate, do you think that would add another billion?
LikeLike
@ Camel,
you have failed to reply substantively to a single argument I made over the Denialist “They’re trying to kill the poor!” myth, neither the statistics I quoted, the funding policies, or the actual arguments themselves. One day you’ll wake up and hear Monckton going on about the GLOBAL COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY to take all our money and give it to Africa and you’ll smack your forehead and wonder how you could have believed the other conspiracy theory where we are trying to rip them off and prevent their development. But of course, when your mind is made up for you by irrational denialists, it’s easy to be blown here and there by every wind of teaching.
LikeLike
@ Camel,
I actually AGREE with much of what DV8 was saying about Africa! What he has failed to prove is that our 2 goals are incompatible, especially as I see local Open Sourced Hardware as a temporary solution UNTIL they can upgrade infrastructure and afford to install clean nuclear power.
Imagine the following scenario in a small African village.
Little girl runs in: “Mumma, Mumma, at school today they said one day Africa might have nuclear power.”
Mum: “That’s nice dear.”
Little boy runs in: “Dad, Uncle Joe has finished his wind turbine! It works most evenings! He’s got the light running and is even charging a few radios!”
Dad: “Everyone, we’re going out. I’ve got to have a chat with Uncle Joe!”
LikeLike
@ Camel
Relevance? Who are you calling a Marxist? Are you changing your tune and siding with Monckton now? Are us “Greenie Conspirators” giving too much money to Africa now rather than too little? ;-)
LikeLike
@ Gregory Meyerson,
I actually thought Hayek had some good points about information feedbacks in a market economy. It’s why I’m into “social liberalism: Civil rights, Social Justice and State funded welfare in a Market Economy”.
LikeLike
@ Podagarus
If you have no further contributions to the debate — and all your previous contributions were found to be just so much whining — then just say so!
LikeLike
@ David B Benson
So by Pacific Northwest you mean the narrow band of superb wind power along the coast, not the vast dead chunks inland from there? Because the vast majority of the Northwest of America is NOT on the wind map. That’s all I was trying to state — and I still haven’t had a reply as to where this ’10 dead days’ actually occurred.
LikeLike
@ Eclipse Now, You and I are very far apart on the subject of Africa, because you are imagining scenarios that fit with your ideological predilections. You have a very shallow grasp of technology, and how various dependencies work, and I believe that you, like many who are pushing for low-tech solutions for the Third World think that these will serve as living proof of how the whole world can live on short energy rations. As a consequence many have taken the stand that we should encourage these low energy ideas, and deflect criticism by saying that nuclear will come someday. I am willing to bet that to the contrary they fervently hope that nuclear will be shown to be unnecessary.
According to IEA (2009) worldwide 1.456 billion people do not have access to electricity, of which 83% live in rural areas. In Sub-Saharan Africa only 12% of the rural population has access to electricity. Worldwide rural electrification progresses only slowly. Due to high population growth the number of people without electricity is expected to rise in Sub-Saharan Africa.
What I am pushing for is some plan similar to the Rural Electrification Administration in the United States. Consider the parallels.
Before 1936, a small but growing number of farms installed small wind-electric plants. These generally used a 40V DC generator to charge batteries in the barn or the basement of the farmhouse. This was enough to provide lighting, and some limited well-pumping. Wind-electric plants were used mostly on the great plains, which have usable winds on most days but it was a far cry from the advantages (notably refrigeration) enjoyed by those on the grid.
Of the 6.3 million farms in the United States in January 1925, only 205,000 were receiving centralized electric services. The Rural Electrification Administration (REA) was created by executive order as an independent federal bureau in 1935, authorized by the United States Congress in the 1936 Rural Electrification Act, and later in 1939, reorganized as a division of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. It was charged with administering loan programs for electrification and telephone service in rural areas. Between 1935 and 1939 – or the first 4 ½ years after REA’s establishment, the number of farms using electric services more than doubled. By the early 1970s about 98% of all farms in the United States had electric service, a demonstration of REA’s success.
[Source for above paragraph: Beall, Robert T. (1940). “Rural Electrification.”
It is this sort of program that is needed in many parts of the Third World, and for the same reason: the New Dealers knew that if they did not raise the standard of living across the board in the US the growing discrepancies between the haves and the have nots would ferment revolution, thus having a negative impact on the former in the long run.
As for Open Source solutions, they are not likely to work. Open Source software was something that evolved naturally as a consequence of the inherent properties of computer code, not the least of which was the fact that it can be duplicated without limit, cost, or loss of integrity. In the physical domain it is made and modified by a single universal tool, which it fact it also where it is used. These features are unique to this application, and are not present anywhere else, which is why Open Source has never caught on in other areas.
There have been attempts which all have failed to come close to the utility of the software model because in the end they are too limited to compete at any level with dedicated design and manufacturing. As always, wanting something to be because it suits some ascetic, or belief of how the world ought to be, never survives real-world implementation.
LikeLike
Eclipse Now, on 12 June 2011 at 9:42 AM — The Columbia Basin (including the Columbia Gorge) is not on the coast. That’s the 32% part but eastern Oregon and in to southren Idaho is windy enough with current subsidy practices.
Your wind potential map is deficient; we have at least ~4.5 MWp of wind turbines so far with much more under construction.
LikeLike
At least one German is not impressed with the plans to shut down Germany’s NPPs:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,767900,00.html
LikeLike
From a govt think tank
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/renewable-subsidies-too-costly-productivity-commission/story-fn59niix-1226072665830
LikeLike
@ DV8
Look at my blog. Have I changed my stance on nuclear power? No. For all your protestations to the contrary you’ve just confirmed exactly what I thought you were saying — that you begrudge small scale local African development because that’s just not doing it your way! So quote a bunch of national statistics as if I’m unaware of the sheer SCALE of the challenge. Be my guest. You’re just re-stating the need for nuclear power across developing nations, which I already agree with! But your paragraph above just confirms everything I feared. It’s ideology speaking, banning them from doing whatever they can, village by village, to improve their lives a fraction.
Boy, that sounds like it might need some sort of Pan-African security agreement, maybe even a Federation?
Agreed! A good analogy! I’m with you so far. This is roughly how I’m imagining the village-by-village system to work, except fridges with icing systems have been developed for intermittent power: but that’s another subject.
This is where we part company. What Federation? You’ve already called an African Federation a ‘fantasy’. You’ve totally lost me here. It’s a dream for the next 15 to 20 years, but not now. It’s a worthy goal, but it’s a long way away. Are you saying they have to wait for that?
Your 2 paragraphs about Open Source are not worth responding to. You really seem to just be using meaningless words to dismiss something you don’t like. Have you even watched the TED.com talk? Their monthly donations are growing exponentially and the whole movement is taking off because it can deliver useful tools at 1/8th the price, in a simple, no frills design with no built in obsolescence from the manufacturer. So far, from the few cases I have seen online, it just seems to work, and frees users from the ongoing costs of complex servicing agreements. These items are simple, robust, modular, and cheap. If you wish to disprove the claims for pricing try the tractor, for example. You’re far more technically educated than I am, but even I can tell when someone’s just mouthing off.
LikeLike
@ David Benson,
Was the Columbia basin the subject of the ’10 dead days’ or are you talking about your home area? Cheers.
LikeLike
EclipseNow,
While I no longer consider you to be harmless, you are still clueless in technical matters.
In respect for Gregory Meyerson I will say no more about the way authoritarian regimes murder their own citizens.
Let’s get back to the much smaller matter of how misguided energy policies harm the poorest people on the planet.
LikeLike
@ John,
that’s a very interesting report you’ve found there! It smashes rooftop solar, but had some interesting things to say about wind.
LikeLike
@ Steve Darden
Thanks for the link to that calculator of MacKay’s!
LikeLike
I get the sense that the Africa issue flaming between DV and EN boils down to timeframe … and would not be surprised if the two would actually agree on key issues.
I do not see EN advocating that low technology energy solutions be pushed on Africa and then that’s it.
Cheap, abundant grid power is the goal for the 1.5 billion people-or-so currently off-grid … absolutely.
The issue is that that will take years, and years and years … these folk have not been a priority in the eyes of those who make the generation/distribution investments … and are likely to remain so.
But, it is possible to bring low cost, low tech energy solutions to them NOW and these will bring immediate & direct benefits and lift them up the energy totem. I believe this is what EN is saying.
I have volunteered for some years with a group which funds solar LED lamps which can be put into the hands of villagers for A$25 … replacing a kero lamp which consumes A$75 pa. It’s paid for in 4 months; saves the household on kero; cuts down health hazards and promotes child learning, home businesses and local entrepreneurs who distribute the lamps. Micro-finance is offered to villagers who don’t have the cash upfront.
We have distribution channels setup in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda & Vanuatu. The manufacturing channel can spit out 100,000 lamps per month.
Now this isn’t the be all and end all. But it is an immediate, certain positive.
Experience shows that once a cluster of households have switched off kero to solar lamps for lighting, it becomes economical to install some PV equipment to run more extensive lighting (community halls, market precincts and so on). This may become economical quite quickly.
But experience also shows that when a whole village (effectively) has effectively switched off kero lamps, it makes LESS sense to create a “village grid” using solar PV; it’s actually more economical to install a diesel generator. While this reverts to fossil, it is what the village can best afford at that time; they have saved money coming off kero; more savings moving to clustered PV panels; and even more when they can afford a generator.
And when they get to the generator the energy benefits expand – they can run cooking appliances and dump the grubby stoves for example.
This cheaper energy journey takes just a few years for a village. It’s not the desired end point, of course. But it happens a lot quicker than waiting for the grid; and the benefits are immediate and material. Switching off kero can ‘save’ a household 10% of their income; the kids education & health are enhanced etc.
It works for me as simple, direct, immediate affordable action … and in parallel I can still agitate for the realisation of the grid build-out with the nice cheap (but clean) energy that I enjoy.
It is not either-or.
LikeLike
Hi all, this wiki traces the anti-nuclear feeling around the world since F-day. We’ve got a lot of work to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_Fukushima_I
LikeLike
Eclipse Now, on 12 June 2011 at 2:36 PM — There can be extended periods without (much) wind, depending upon the season. Watch
http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx
for the current action.
I’m a bit far east to be considered Columbia Basin but folks several tems of kms further north are seriously considering putting in some wind farms [I think they’ll be disappointed, myself.]
LikeLike
As reported by the BBC, Phil Jones declares global warming since 1995 to be statistically significant at the 95% confidence level in the HadCRUT temperature record.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
LikeLike
@Eclipse Now – The fact that you will not respond to what I wrote on why there are no parallels to Open Source in the physical realm is a clear indication that you cannot find a counter argument. If you can show examples please do, unreferenced statements are not permitted here. Do so and I will show you just why these are not Open Source in anything but name.
I showed an example of something that worked, you are countering with imagination. Wind generation DID NOT WORK in the States in the Twenties, that is why the Rural Electrification program came into being.
(deleted inflammatory comment)
Rural Electrification programs are happening all over the world.
In 1981, 54.9% of Brazilian households were served by electric power, according to the IBGE’s PNAD survey. In 2000, the Brazilian Federal Government, under the Fernando Henrique Cardoso administration, launched the Luz no Campo program to expand the distribution of electricity in Brazilian domiciles, with a focus on rural households; from 2003 on, the program was reinforced and renamed Luz para Todos by the Lula administration. The results are as follows: according to the PNAD: by 1996, 79.9% of all households had access to an electric power supply; that proportion rose to 90.8% in 2002 and 98.9% in 2009.
In Jamaica, The Rural Electrification Programme (REP) was incorporated in 1975 with the specific mandate to expand the reach of electricity supply to rural areas, where the provision of such services would not be economically viable for commercial providers of electricity. The REP extends the national grid through the construction of electrical distribution pole lines to un-electrified areas and provides house wiring assistance through a loan programme to householders.
REF: http://www.rep.gov.jm/
These are real programs, supplying real power to depressed and rural communities, run by governments. (deleted imflammatory attack)
I never wrote that electrifying and Third-World community was going to be a village-level project, but the efforts that you support are pointless, worthless, and create the illusion that something is being done when it is not.
(deleted personal opinion of someone’s motives)
MODERATOR
Enough! I have let this conversation between you and EN progress without moderation but it has descended into vitriol and invective and become quite unpleasant. Continue in a civil manner or stop altogether. That goes for both of you.
LikeLike
Thank you Alan! I said as much but I’m glad someone else picked it up!!!
That’s it! You said the ‘solar’ word! Look out mate… you could be accused of using this first step towards renewables as eventually denying the benefits of nuclear . ;-)
(Nice example by the way).
Excellent description! It’s most definitely a journey we are describing, from hand-planted and harvested crops to tractors and harvesters, from peasant life to education and plumbing and fresh water and their first electricity ever and finally the internet! This is why they hope to boil the whole “Global Village Construction Set” down to a “Civilization starter kit on a DVD” so that a mobile laptop (solar powered in “deepest darkest Africa”?) can show all the schematics, costings, parts required and even video animation tutorials.
Cheers!
LikeLike
@Eclipse Now – To restate, in less inflammatory terms what was redacted by the moderator, I believe that centering your argument on the concept of ‘Federation’ is a deliberate attempt to obscure the issue. This has nothing to do with the existence of a federation in Africa or anywhere else, and is sophistry at best to attempt to confound the issue with the name of an American agency. Furthermore this is not an issue limited to the African condition.
Small scale projects conceived in First World countries are often uncoordinated and piecemeal, with little long-term planning or follow-up, initiated by those that are not stakeholders in these regions, and are often driven by ulterior motives like mounting social experiments, or providing PR for NGO’s
I also find your stated support for nuclear energy at odds with your continued defense of alternate/low energy and thus I am forced to conclude that the former is not a complete truth.
LikeLike
@Eclipse Now – I am still waiting for examples of these so-called Open Source projects you claim that are out there.
LikeLike
I wonder how sound those statistics are. I was in Brazil in 2007, and (without being able to provide a reference here) I can almost certainly say that less than 98.9 % of people there have electricity. This may be due to some 25 % of the population (54 million people) living in favelas, which are generally considered “illegal” settlements and therefore probably aren’t counted as households. Though a lot of people in favelas do illegally tap into the grid too.
I realise this isn’t that germane to the electrification program argument, but not totally off topic if we’re talking about poverty and access to electricity.
LikeLike
“Of course, you can remove the seasonal variation storage needs by building your renewables assuming the lowest seasonal CF. This increases the generator costs (but those are much cheaper than storage) and still doesn’t solve the “small” time-scale fluctuation problems.”
Actually this is done with the normalization, the price of the panels is .75$/watt but the capacity factor normalizes it, in short you do not install panels for peak output but rather for average output. With Germany it is difficult not because of the average, as that would be taken into account during normalization (ie .75/.11 vs .75/.19) but sadly the severe seasonal variation. Cyril loves to point out just how weak the solar irradiation is during the winter, and he is right 0.86 is very very weak. If it were stable like almost every other place solar could work alone, but prices per watt would have to be roughly half of what they are right now assuming .75 it should be .35 for it to work there, BUT its not stable, its a thought experiment so thankfully wind is there to pick up the slack they can share storage and wind has a better capacity factor during the winter months.
The most severely cloudy days roughly halves max power output, its never 0, check the daily solar site from Germany, don’t go back to November when its almost all night, but check out the good days, solar irradiation due to earths position is constant if the days are close, and you can clearly see which days were cloudy (June 8) followed by sunny ones (perfect bell curve like say june 4) In Germany it also never reaches nameplate power peak. As that is rated for the sunniest sites.
http://www.sma.de/en/news-information/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany.html
“So in OECD nations (under the assumption uranium prices do not differ significantly across these nations), fuel accounts for 9.4 % – 26.5 % of LCOE.”
Its still just an LCOE, a financial crapshot used to deny capital intensive works, yes in a perfect world where investments return 10% every year will fuel costs just be 10-26% of the LCOE, but in the real world inflation works for fuel prices too, and 10% yields are a fantasy. In short 6 Billion (2011 $) are spent in fuel for its entire life. Paid in 60 yearly installments of course…
Again renewables are almost by definition ALL capital costs, nuclear is around half and half and FF is almost all operating costs. But I still want to prove that renewable capital costs are competitive with well regulated nuclear capital costs. Its getting very close.
LikeLike
I’ll agree that it is physically impossible to download a tractor off the internet for free, if that’s what you’re after! ;-)
This will be the 3rd or 4th time I have referenced them.
4 minute TED talk
Video site and blog
http://opensourceecology.org/
Wiki that links to THE FREE PLANS and other resources
http://openfarmtech.org/wiki/Main_Page
Remember, JUST LIKE Open Source software, the INFORMATION IS FREELY DOWNLOADED OFF THE NET! But OF COURSE the basic tools and materials must be sourced locally.
It empowers a local economy. This really is happening! No amount of denial makes it go away.
(Indeed, I could say I HOPE it goes away because it would mean some magic new nano-manufacturing had arrived that proved even CHEAPER than Open Sourced hardware, rendering it useless to these off-the-grid D.I.Y. types. But at this stage that’s dreaming!)
All it takes is some scrap metal, one African workshop with a few drills and other *basic* tools, and a little power (off-grid solar, diesel, or even wood fired steam generators). Then you can kick start a civilisation.
Can you do me a favour and quote where I have disagreed that rural electrification would be a good thing and then show us all? I’ll be interested to learn where I wrote that, because I certainly don’t remember doing so!
The main reason I am focussing on Africa is because I already agree with you that these programs are happening at an enormous velocity throughout South America and Asia. China and India are bringing more peasant populations into the modern world faster than we’ve ever seen in human history! That’s why even though some of their farmers and workshops might enjoy the benefits of the Global Village Construction Set, I’m not suggesting that THEY will have to use local wind. Before they can build it there’ll be a local grid.
But Africa? Africa’s improved a lot in past decades, and there are many stories of development and hope. So there will be rural electrification in some areas — FANTASTIC!
And right next door there are still areas of unimaginable suffering and political instability and organised rape and persecution and deprivation. Wars flare up, die off, and the New Boys become the Old Boys that then also need to be overthrown. Do you see rural electrification programs happening in THAT specific context?
Can you please offer a reference to support your CLAIM that Open Source hardware projects have been adopted and then dropped? The main projects I have referenced above are growing exponentially. Remember:
No, but I did, because that’s what is happening when they get sick of waiting for the super-grid to arrive. So they do it themselves.
This is the TED interview with young William Kamkwamba again — who built his own wind turbine out of a bicycle and some wood panels, and gave his home lighting and radios! Maybe in a decade or so they’ll have such increased productivity because of listening to the radio and working and reading at night that they might be able to pool resources and create a local grid. But right now, it’s as I said in my first post — it’s better than nothing.
When you see my blog change from being pro-nuclear to exclusively pro-renewables, then come and yell at me. But until then, I’m like Barry: I’m for *both*!
Why are you so personally threatened by all this? Is it Marcin Jakubowski’s Phd in Fusion energy and then him going all hippie and off-grid? Is it some carry-over from your hippie family you mentioned? I just don’t get why you’re so foul on this idea.
LikeLike
Ha ha! Even with his Phd in Fusion energy Marcin stuffs up now and then. Check out his earlier 2008 ‘Life-track’ tractor.
In keeping with his goals of making things ‘modular’ and multifunctional, he tried to attach a back-hoe to his earlier, smaller model of the ‘Life-track’ tractor. This video is not one of his ‘how to’ instructional video’s, but just documenting his journey in experimenting with this project. Sometimes things don’t work. No wonder the Tractor has become larger, wider, with more support steel beams and a chunkier design.
I say good on him for trying!
LikeLike
@ DV8,
if you want to tell them their movement doesn’t exist and there are no projects on the ground, maybe you could go to their New York conference this year which is expecting record numbers?
http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/
LikeLike
@ DV8,
I think I have addressed this in the larger post above, but I reject your characterisation. Sure I’d prefer a ‘Federation’ for Africa, but basically my core argument — if you read all my posts in context — was about security. War and political instability and social upheaval busts stuff up. An integrated African Federation is my particular dream for Africa, I’m sure you have some of your own when you watch the news and sigh. However, I’m delighted if rural electrification programs can spread like wildfire throughout that continent before the inevitable Federation occurs.
(Sighs). I’ll say it again. William Kamkwamba built it *himself* because he got fed up waiting.
LikeLike
Hi. Could someone help me debunk this conspiracy theory?:
“Yesterday (3 June 2011) in a press conference, NISA admitted that they had suppressed disclosure of the finding of radioactive tellurium (Te-132) at 6 km offsite of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The finding was in the morning of 12 March (i.e. at the wake of the quake) and the detected concentration was 73 Bq per cubic meters.
The release of Te-132 indicates that the temperature of the nuclear fuel rods were over 1000 degrees Celsius at that early stage of the accident. It is significant that the finding was BEFORE the emergency ventilation of the Unit-1 reactor containment. The tellurium detection is a good, decisive proof that the Fukushima reactors went through LOCA (loss of coolant accident) and the meltdown actually started very soon after the quake shock.”
http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2011/06/05/nisa-confesses-suppressing-crucial-information-at-early-stage-of-accident-magpie-news/
Some people are saying that this was proof that the fuel was melting, but NISA was saying that the fuel was ok (so the government was lying and so on). I haven’t been able to find information about this, not even about the June 3 press conference…
LikeLike